You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • I am not sure I trust that website's analysis. This sentence " But on March 1, Carter's UN Ambassador, Donald F. McHenry, voted for a viciously anti-Israel resolution in the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlement activity in Jerusalem." made me wonder what kind of a site it is; the home page, and the articles listed, show it to be entirely pro-Israel (to adopt its own deliberately misleading terminology). In the quote above objection to Israel's illegal occupation is characterised as "viciously anti-Israel", implying that being opposed to the illegal occupation (as is virtually every country in the world that has ever voted on this question in the UN, the US and the UK being the usual exceptions) is to be *anti-Israel. *So it is not Israel that is out of step, it is the rest of the world. Because their view that Israel should heed international law makes them *viciously *anti-Israel.
    The article quoted seems tendentious, striving to make Jewish voters appear more significant than they are and to put the fear in to any politician who reads it as well as provide those politicians with a perfect excuse for why they cannot adopt 'anti-Israel' policies: yeh, sure we would love to tell Israel to stop breaking the law but the Jews won't let us. Also it may well be out of date already as the demographic of American voters change and, for example, Hispanic voters become more and more influential.
    The article also wastes no time on considering how the language applied to this subject might influence voters; not surprising since it itself provides a good example of the kind of propaganda that passes for journalism in mainstream US media and 'scholarship'.
    The role of Jewish voters in American elections is only one factor in the US's treatment of Israel and, I think, a much more minor one than is suggested by this article.
    [/FONT]

About

Avatar for deleted @deleted started